5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău. He was, at the time of the events to which the present application pertains, the Chairman of the Association of Historians of the Republic of Moldova and a university professor and is the author of the 1996 school curriculum on “Universal History”.
6.  On 4 April 2002 the official newspaper of the Moldovan Government, Moldova Suverană (“Sovereign Moldova”), published an article written by a historian and former deputy minister for education, S.N., headed “Commentary on Mr Petrenco's reply on the Internet” (Comentariul la răspunsul de pe Internet al domnului Petrenco). The article made negative remarks about the applicant's competence as a historian. It went on to suggest that the applicant's university place as a postgraduate student and his subsequent career as a historian were the result of his cooperation with the Soviet secret services. In particular, the article contained the following statements:
“That is, Mr Petrenco, it is not a political question but has to do with your 'feeble' memory or the lack of professional dignity.”
“But, you see, they did not properly understand this exorcising priest ...”
“... for his special merit (confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b)[1] – KGB[2]), [the applicant] was sent for postgraduate studies ...”
“... as a student, he excelled ... due to his 'special accomplishments' (he was a well-educated person who knew how to knock politely and respectfully at his superiors' doors: knock-knock-knock?!? [stuk-stuk-stuk][3]), and he became a member of CPSU[4] – AUCP (b) during his student years ...”
“...the Party once sent a 'Volga' especially for [the applicant] (how much faith did those from the CC – KGB have in comrade Petrenco Anatolii Mihailovici!!) to take him to Chişinău ...”
7.  On 18 April 2002, the applicant brought defamation proceedings against S.N. and the newspaper, seeking the publication of a retraction and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
8.  During the proceedings before the Centru District Court, the court heard evidence from a witness who was questioned about the allegation that, as a student, the applicant had collaborated with the Soviet secret services. The witness was unable to confirm whether the applicant had been involved with the secret services and merely stated that the KGB had been operating undercover.
9.  In its judgment of 30 April 2003 the Centru District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. The court found that it had been confirmed that the applicant had been a member of the Communist Party. However, it held that the reference to the applicant's links with the secret services (“confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b) – KGB”) was defamatory as it had not been proved that he was an agent of the KGB. The court's judgment stated, inter alia:
“... S.N.'s assertion that A. Petrenco 'was sent for postgraduate studies' ... only for his 'special accomplishments' for the KGB and 'confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b) – KGB', cannot, in the court's opinion, be interpreted other than as meaning that the applicant had collaborated with the KGB, which is recognised as having been a repressive organisation during the Soviet period. Any such collaboration is seen as highly reprehensible by civil society. Taking into consideration that this fact has not been confirmed, the statements seriously affect the applicant's honour and dignity and cause him non-pecuniary damage and, therefore, should be retracted ...”
10.  The court ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction, within 15 days, of some of the statements in the article of 4 April 2002, including the statement “confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b) – KGB”. It further ordered S.N. and the newspaper to pay the applicant 900 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 57 euros (EUR) at the time) and MDL 1,800 (EUR 114) respectively.
11.  The court also found in favour of S.N. in a counter-claim in respect of an article allegedly published by the applicant. The applicant appealed the judgment.
12.  On 23 December 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Centru District Court on grounds of procedural error and remitted the case for a fresh judgment by the Centru District Court.
13.  Pending the re-hearing of the case, on 1 April 2004, Moldova Suverană published an article headed “Moldova Suverană does not tolerate accusations and primitivisms”, which stated, inter alia, that:
“... S.N.'s article of 4 April 2002 ... and the inappropriate language used do not represent the editorial policy of this newspaper. Epithets like 'feeble memory' or 'lack of personal dignity' [sic], 'exorcising priest' used by the scientist [S.]N. towards the scientist Petrenco are alien to us.
Moreover, we recall that the article was published two years ago and since then, the editorial board has changed, starting with its editor at the time, I.G., and continuing with the political department of the newspaper.
Therefore, we regret the disparaging remarks and immoderate language directed at the historian Mr Petrenco, even if we assume our right not to share his political opinions and ideas.”
14.  In the subsequent proceedings before the Centru District Court, S.N. stated that during the Soviet era nobody would have been sent to Moscow for postgraduate studies without the support of the Communist Party and the KGB. However, he accepted that not all those sent for postgraduate studies had been KGB agents.
15.  On 12 May 2004 the Centru District Court dismissed the applicant's action, finding, inter alia:
“... According to the author of the article, he published it in good faith and had no intention to humiliate or defame his former colleague [Mr Petrenco]. On the contrary, he said in evidence that, in his personal opinion, Mr Petrenco had been a brilliant student and a committed activist, who was well-mannered and respected his elders. The fact that he had become a member of the CPSU was not a secret and did not disclose any intention to defame, because everyone has the right to become a member of a political party ...
... the court finds that both [the author and the applicant] were former colleagues at the history faculty and had published articles in the press without any intention to defame the other.”
16.  The applicant appealed.
17.  On 28 September 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that S.N. could not be held responsible for expressing his opinions. It considered the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments and stated:
“... [the Court of Appeal] considers that the phrases written in the article represent the author's own subjective opinion of Mr Petrenco ...
In a democratic society a person cannot be held responsible for expressing his own views ...
The notion of a 'value judgment' has also to be taken into consideration, which means that a person cannot be held responsible for his opinions or his views on certain events or circumstances ..., the veracity of which cannot be proved.”
18.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He mainly contended that:
“... the said article was published by the newspaper in bad faith and the first-instance court wrongly found that S.N. publishes articles in the press without any intention to defame the applicant. The defendants knowingly published the article with the aim of damaging the applicant's honour, dignity and professional reputation.
... the applicant does not object to the author's right freely to express his views, but he objects to the derogatory remarks in the article, which are not true and, in substance, damage the applicant's honour, dignity and professional reputation.
The courts disregarded the fact that the defendants had disseminated information which was damaging to [the applicant's] honour and did not apply the provisions of sections 7 and 7/1 of the Civil Code...”
19.  The applicant attached to his appeal a linguistic report on the author's statements prepared by the National Centre of Terminology of the Department of Interethnic Relationships. The report concluded that S.N. had directly insulted the applicant and that the article had damaged his honour, dignity and professional reputation.
20.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice held that the applicant's appeal was inadmissible as it reiterated the arguments advanced at first instance and before the Court of Appeal. The court nonetheless briefly considered the issues arising in the case and found, inter alia, that:
“... Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 32 of the Moldovan Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of expression, including the right to communicate information and ideas.
Under these circumstances, by dismissing the applicant's action, the courts have correctly found that a distinction must be drawn between facts and 'value judgments'.
As the lower courts found in their judgments in the present case, the author's statements must be treated as 'value judgments', a circumstance which excludes liability on the part of the newspaper Moldova Suverană for the opinion it has expressed on certain events and circumstances, the veracity of which is impossible to prove.
In the light of the above and taking into consideration that the impugned statements are, in substance, 'value judgments' ... the appeal on points of law must be dismissed.”
21.  The Court made no comment on the report attached to the appeal.
22.  According to the applicant, he was not summoned to attend the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice.